Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Plural Marriage was Essential for Exaltation.


Ray Agostini

Recommended Posts

Ray, you're thinking of Michael Barrett.  I think a reasonable person would conclude that Barrett was disciplined not because he was preaching false doctrine, nor because he was letting secret true doctrines out of the bag, but because his letters were clearly intended to cast the church in a negative light.

It was Michael Barrett. My reading of his account does not lead me to believe he was trying to cast the church in a negative light. I think he did feel that the church was less than forthright, or honest, in the way it treated polygamy. I think that he, personally, was convinced that polygamy was a true doctrine but felt that the church was being hypocritical in the way it disguised that fact. So one could read that as being negative to the church, but it highlights the dilemma I'm speaking of. Barrett was essentially saying, "why do we believe in polygamy yet hide that fact from the public?"

Here is an excerpt from one link:

Church officials do not dispute the accuracy of Barrett's letters to The Times' Westside Section and to newspapers as far afield as London, England, and Calgary, Alberta. Rather, it was his defiance of orders to stop his letter-writing campaign that got him in trouble.

But Barrett did say:

"I still believe the Church is true," Barrett said. "I just now have a greater understanding of the fact that our leaders are indeed human."

That's not what the usual apostates say.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/excom.shtml

I don't have access to the Sunstone article, but in that Barrett claimed that the church leaders told him they were attempting to become a mainstream Christian church and they did not want polygamy emphasised. To me it just highlights the continuing dilemma, and the uncertain future this doctrine/belief faces. It has caused untold division and confusion, which has still not been resolved. Either the church believes in plural marriage, or it does not. From what Pres. Hinckley has said publicly in recent years, we are no more wiser. Even if a president of the church could come out and say, anywhere on the public record - "we believe in polygamy in principle", that would go such a long way to clarifying the dilemma, but in every interview Pres.Hinckley has had he has said "it's in the past", and "it's behind us". I would like anyone to show me where he has said, "we believe it in principle".

And I wonder: What would happen if a GA were, hypothetically, to stand up in a conference and teach the "principle" of PM? Would his talk be "edited" as Elder Poelman's was in 1984? I find all of the duality quite destabilising and uncertain. And even if someone was not "negative" as Barrett was, could they teach this in public? Is it taught in the missionary discusions? Why not? If it's so essential to exaltation, should it not be taught, as all of the GAs did pre-1890? That's what the subject of this thread is.

Link to comment
1. Lori is a troll.

2. Ray, if you want to bring up the Barrett case it would behove you to actually cite some materials that support your contention.

I have just run a lexus/nexus search and can't find a thing about the case.

C.I.

I'll have a look for the article tomorrow or by the weekend, as it's 3am my time. Even a look at "polygamy" on FAIR resulted in this comment:

Although certain that God would require it of him and of the Church, Joseph Smith would not have introduced it when he did except for the conviction that God required it then. Several close confidants later said that he proceeded with plural marriage in Nauvoo only after both internal struggle and divine warning. Lorenzo Snow later remembered vividly a conversation in 1843 in which the Prophet described the battle he waged "in overcoming the repugnance of his feelings" regarding plural marriage.

http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=145

I had to speed-read the article as I have to sign off. Working tomorrow. But can anyone tell me if anywhere in that article it says what the pre-1890 leaders said, that PM is essential to exaltation? Even that article seems to be reflecting what Pres.Hinckley said, that it's in the past, NOT essential to exaltation, and never was. Quite contrary to what all of the pre-1890 leaders taught. But remember, Pres.Hinckley said that this was done "on a limited scale" and "protected". As if it was just as the BoM said, for "raising up seed" for a time. But how can we reconcile that with what all of the other leaders taught, like Joseph F.Smith and others, that it was necessary for exaltation?

Good night.

Link to comment
It was almost a campaign-like attempt to inform the public about what Mormons "really believed".
Seems to me the significant issue was that he took it upon himself to speak for the Church and actively sought out the opportunities (as opposed to just responding with information and his opinion when asked) and refused to stop when the Church (through its appointed leaders) asked him not to.
Link to comment
It was almost a campaign-like attempt to inform the public about what Mormons "really believed".
Seems to me the significant issue was that he took it upon himself to speak for the Church and actively sought out the opportunities (as opposed to just responding with information and his opinion when asked) and refused to stop when the Church (through its appointed leaders) asked him not to.

Here is Barratt's version of that as recorded in the Salt Lake City Messenger (Issue 86, June 1994) quoting the Washington Post:

Two weeks after David P. Wright's excommunication was revealed in the Tribune, the Washington Post reported: "A Fairfax County man who works as a lawyer for the Central Intelligence Agency was excommunicated from the Mormon church yesterday for conducting a newspaper letter-writing campaign about the history and teachings of his religion.... Barrett said he has done nothing wrong. 'It is kind of ironic. I'm fairly well-received at the CIA when I counsel them we have to tell the truth. When I try to tell these same principles to church leaders, I have a big problem.' " (Washington Post, April 23, 1994)

I would prefer to quote the actual Sunstone report but unfortunately I only have free access up to the February 1994 issue, and could not find the report in that issue. Since the Tanners reported it in their June issue it may have occurred around or just before the Feb.issue of Sunstone came out.

http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/mag-search.asp

It's obviously in a later issue in 1994, so if anyone has access to those issues they might want to find the report if they care to do so. I'll keep searching for more online reports when I have time.

As reported above, Barratt only felt he was telling the truth about where the church stood on polygamy, "in principle". So I believe that my original assertion is right: If any member tries to do the same, depending on what is written, how much is written, and the extent of the writing, he/she could be in trouble with the church leaders. Note the case of David Wright. Wright was not saying anything unique. Edwin Firmage Brown repeated almost the same ideas in a lengthy article in Sunstone and the church did not touch him (he had only just emerged publicly about his belief that the BoM was not history, and even proposed that in future he might conclude it was fraud). The difference with Wright is that he was an influentiall scholar and widely published.

Link to comment

Hello Ray and all else here,

Here is another interesting and strange quote from Brigham Young concerning Plural Marriage (Polygamy):

"Now, where a man in this Church says, "I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one," he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom;but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, "Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent," and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single for ever and ever. But if the woman is determined not to enter into a plural marriage, that woman when she comes forth will have the privilege of living in single blessedness through all eternity." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.16, p.166 - p.167)
Link to comment
1. Lori is a troll.

C.I.

Can somebody tell me why I am being called a troll? I have seen this term used on my other topic also.

As I understand "troll" in this context, it means you're something other than you say you are, just coming in disguise to stir up trouble. There is necessarily a connotation of disingenuousness. However, the term is often misused and applied to anyone whose posts the writer finds exceptionally aggravating. For example, nobody could accurately call me a troll, because my views are truly my own, I don't disclose untrue facts about myself, and if anyone cared to know my true identity I'd tell them (I just kind of like the nick-name Charlemagne).

Link to comment
1. Lori is a troll.

C.I.

Can somebody tell me why I am being called a troll? I have seen this term used on my other topic also.

As I understand "troll" in this context, it means you're something other than you say you are, just coming in disguise to stir up trouble. There is necessarily a connotation of disingenuousness. However, the term is often misused and applied to anyone whose posts the writer finds exceptionally aggravating. For example, nobody could accurately call me a troll, because my views are truly my own, I don't disclose untrue facts about myself, and if anyone cared to know my true identity I'd tell them (I just kind of like the nick-name Charlemagne).

So CI thinks I am not really Lori, with my views of polygamy? That's pretty funny.

Link to comment

Trolling doesn't mean that you might not have issues with polygamy or might not have the name of Lori, it just means that your agenda in presenting tyour posts might not be want you say it is.

There have been several posters here and elsewhere that have come on acting like they are sincere and frantic in seeking answers or at least dialogue, but end up demonstrating that they have already made their mind up on the subject long ago and are interested in only giving their opinion and arguing against others. What they do is present themselves as questioners and then when honest and sincere and often thoughtful answers are given, they attack or ignore them and just go on with comments like 'no one is willing to answer me' etc.

Your lament that why couldn't a serious apologist just state that Joseph sinned in some way (as in his treatment of Emma) even if they believed the revelation was true carries the scent of troll since there has been discussion by apologists on this line on the board here and elsewhere. Also the claim that the books present polygamy all negative seems overstated because there are positive aspects (in the sense of individual experience) in at least some of the books you presented as having read. The only way to present the books' conclusions as all negative is to label those individuals as liars or brainwashed zombies--a trollish thing to do.

So your posting style does share commonalities with past trolls. Whether or not this means you are one, it explains why some are suspicious of you.

Link to comment

Hi Lori... <_<

Can somebody tell me why I am being called a troll? I have seen this term used on my other topic also.

It seems to me that nearly everyone who comes to an LDS message board with concerns is labled a troll... :P I think for SOME members they cannot believe that strong faithful members may have issues or questions or difficulties. What is searching and reaching out for answers to you is condemning, criticizing, showing your "anti" tendencies to others.

I find your concerns to be very real and reflective of many others....

So just keep on your search... :unsure:

~dancer~

Link to comment
However, the term is often misused and applied to anyone whose posts the writer finds exceptionally aggravating. 

I think that's the best description of the use of "troll" yet. This has to be one of the most misused and abused terms on the internet. For me it fits neatly in with "nark", "nerd", "wog", "nigger", coolie", "boofhead", "coon", etc. There should be board rules about people being accused of being a "troll" without foundation. It also seems to be a way to keep the orthodoxy of forums, and bring people into line with whatever Orwellian thinking dominates a particular board. An obvious case of a troll is someone who has porno images, or has obviously come on the board to stir the pot. I really haven't seen this in Lori's posts that I have read. Maybe I missed some. Accusing someone of being a troll is a way of trying to excommunicate them from the board, excise them, make them leave through shame or embarrassment: "You are not one of us, so P... Off!" Surely intellectual discourse can move beyond that level.

One reason I'm sensitive to this is because of the way I was treated on RFM, where I was Supreme Troll. But only after I horribly confessed that I believed that the BoM is inspired. This inclucated in me an even greater stigma than I felt at church because I questioned things. This revolted me so much that this was where I forever turned by back on so-called "exmos". I did go back on exmo-social for a while, but even there I could not escape the "troll" tag, and several die-hards from RFM came over requesting my excommunication from the board.

Do we really have to demean people with this awful term unless it's clearly warranted? I think not. A lot has been said here about having respect for polygamists. Maybe some feel Lori has not respected them, and hence she has attained this "troll" status. My feeling is that she just has strong opinions about this, and she has a right to those opinions. My perception of her is as someone genuinely in spiritual/emotional turmoil about this subject. And when someone is in such turmoil, especially since she has expressed the opinion that this does not necessarily impinge upon her feelings for the BoM, should she not be given some leeway of expression?

If anyone is a troll in my opinion it would have to be someone like Mighty Curelom, and definitely our former poster Religiously Free, or as Dan Peterson put it, "Factually Free" (LOL). But I can even grant some leeway for MC, and I think people should be spared this derogatory term if they show at least some sincerity in their inquiries.

Just my opinion. Sorry for the diversion, but I have to make my feelings known. The exmos lost me forever because of that branding. I dislike when people categorise me, and if we categorise Lori it may turn her even more against "us". I'm not convinced she's the ogre some are making her out to be. Saying that someone is a "troll" is a way of excising them ad hominem. Take her arguments, hatreds, dislikes, prejudice, whatever, and kill them stone dead, but let her speak free of this inflammatory tag. I honestly can't think of branding anyone a "troll", because I think it's a silly thing to do, and something that mystifies me.

Now back to the real debate.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...